quote:

ORIGINAL: hlen5

I found some of Paul's points of view to be valid. Finding out that as late as 1992 (vs 1962) he's making racist comments totally blows his credibility with me.

(For the record, I don't think that statement would have been OK in '62, either.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: hlen5

I found some of Paul's points of view to be valid. Finding out that as late as 1992 (vs 1962) he's making racist comments totally blows his credibility with me.

(For the record, I don't think that statement would have been OK in '62, either.)

Try 1996.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/26/ron-paul-newsletters-swiftness-of-black-men_n_1169990.html

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Paul wrote of his opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964:

[It] not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business's workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge's defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.[264]

Sadly, he seems to believe that is all the Civil Rights Act did.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Here's the thing,he(Dr.Paul) is an interesting candidate to listen to,by that I mean he has some rather novel ideas.He has some radicals POV...so keeping all of that in mind ...he is interesting.
The thought of him actually being elected to any office with a singular power base(above of course being a member of the House,wherein some of his crazier impulses are blunted by dint of being only one part of such a large august body)is scar as all get out.
Let's face it he is borderline ratso rizzo crazy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

FR

Other than making way for some court cases, he is right. People shoved together who do not want to be together are unlikely to get along well. the right idea but at the wrong time. It actually was counterproductive.

But don't believe me, I was in it. I saw alot of things in the late 1960s and well into the 1980s that would put hair on your chest, curl it and take it off in one fell swoop. There were Black areas Whites would not dare to go into without weapons, and vice versa. And even here at the supposed home of rock and roll, Blacks were literally beaten out of a White rock concert. Amazing since without the Black influence rock might not even exist in anywhere near it's form. Well I guess we would still have the English...........

It's like a fish tank, you don't put cetain species together or there will be trouble and your invesment is toast, or actually I guess ground fish meat. You have no fucking idea how many people are at the bottom of our formerly flammable river who are presumed moved out of state or whatever. People died here because of this shit, and I know for a fact that 50% percent of the White kids got moved the fuck out or dropped out of public schools when that motherfucker Battisti ordered busing here. A few, VERY few with money stayed and sent their kids to Catholic schools. Forced integration WAS NOT ACCOMPLISHED.

Paul is a realist. If I am not given a choice, I will not accept someone. I suspect "they" are the same. And I don't blame "them" a bit.

And what if what Ron Paul said (stipulating that he did say it) about the welfare checks is true ? With he demographics and institutionalized bigotry at the time the statement probably is true. You know it's bad enough when you put up with a politician lying, but it is worse when you castigate one for telling the truth. So to use the welfare line against him, at least prove it to be a lie.

I don't know and I don't care, all I know is that he's the only one out there with any common sense.

Answer me this : What jobs have all these politicians had before ? Bush's job was to kill Texas oil companies and I think his son furthered the family tradition a bit. Clinton was a carreer blowjob recipient of Arkansas. Who knows what Nixon did and Carter was a commercial peanut farmer with a buddy in Iran, which started a whole bunch of more shit as if we fucking needed it.

You talk about candidtates' military record ? The motherfuckers are up in a plane pushing a button that drops bombs on civilians, heroes in the making by "God".

The only one anyone can prove ever worked a day in their life at this point is Ron Paul. And I am not saying he born the son of a sharecropper, or Willie Wonka's brother fighting for the cabbage soup. He got an education. He's a fucking doctor, and NOT an honorary doctor. So is his son. Did they get ANY federal money in life ? Well we all did, in the form of roads and shit if nothing else. But Ron and Rand probably paid more than a bunch of us in taxes because they have a fucking SKILL. Bet they even have a work ethic.

This anti abortionism and the too radical changes to the monetary system are not all that workable, but there is some common sense involved. If I could bend Ron Paul's ear for a bit I bet he would agree that we cannot scrap the current system. But there could be changes made, strict limits to the amount of money that can be printed and/or borrowed.

And he is right about this much, if we can't live within our means then we deserve the consequences, NOW, instead of passing the buck to the next generatiion, which assholes like FDR did who apparently have the foresight of a fucking earthworm, we might make some progress. They were warned as to what would happen and they did it anyway for temoporary comfort, and votes of course. They were warned that the result would be pretty much EXACTLY the state of affairs in which we find ourselves today. We are still paying interest on that chicken in every pot.

That was fine to a point. When we had a decent economy we could afford it. But now that they have gutted it we are fucked.

Obama deserves to lose fo signing that abomination of a health care act. I know it was half written under Bush but he needs to be boiled in oil. Obama only deserves unbearable obscurity.

To put it bluntly, you are all used to the nanny state, and as such you will hate Ron Paul after four years of him at the helm. But the country would have a chance at getting better. I put the need of the country above my wants and whims in most cases. You cannot vote for Ron paul if you don't do that.

T^T

quote:

ORIGINAL: bossman777

quote:

His big ideas will not involve any change in the tax favoritism and spigot to big business.

dickhead, this statement of yours shows you know nothing of the man you speak.  He's been for abolishing the income tax since day one.  If that doesn't "involve any change in tax favoritism" then nothing ever could.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Here's the thing,he(Dr.Paul) is an interesting candidate to listen to,by that I mean he has some rather novel ideas.He has some radicals POV...so keeping all of that in mind ...he is interesting.
The thought of him actually being elected to any office with a singular power base(above of course being a member of the House,wherein some of his crazier impulses are blunted by dint of being only one part of such a large august body)is scar as all get out.
Let's face it he is borderline ratso rizzo crazy.

Drink the Kool Aid.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Perhaps he sholud take better care to insure objectionable views should not be disseminated under his banner than
And in his name

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster

Cute anecdote. Proves fuck-all, but it's cute.

quote:

ORIGINAL: hlen5

Welcome to the forums!

Paul can't have his name on a letterhead and then disavow what is printed in it. He's all about personal responsibilty, let him take some.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Paul wrote of his opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964:

[It] not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business's workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge's defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.[264]

Sadly, he seems to believe that is all the Civil Rights Act did.

My Mom told me (I'm from Seattle) when she saw a headline...above the fold (20 years ago) "SeaFirst (the big Kahuna bank then) ONLY gives 17% of their loans to blacks".  This was her express clarity as to how many and why blacks were getting fucked over.

It was huuuuuge news here.

Headlines are written to make news....not to discern facts.

I asked her, in her indignation (being raised as a somewhat socially conscious person)...."Mom....what's the percentage of blacks in the local area?"

She said...."what the hell does that have to do with ANYTHING????"

I said "well Mom....blacks as a group tend to have lower credit scores than white, Hispanics, Jews and others....doesn't it seem unusual to you that whites (Hispanics, Jews and others) aren't getting loans on a fair percentage basis....?"

So I again asked..."what's the percentage of blacks in our local community? (I already knew the answer)..

It was 9%..

So I explained to her that if blacks were getting 17% of the loans, in a market where they comprised 9% of the population....with lower credit scores....that essentially proved that local banks were scared shitless in giving blacks fewer loans....moreover, those that reflected their % in the marketplace...because...they knew they'd be eviscerated.

PLEASE don't accuse me of being racist...whites were given fewer loans that Asians...who tended to have VASTLY better credit scores....ergo...were more trustworthy as to credit.

So Asians got more loans.  As they should.

Because they'd earned them.

17% loan confirmation, against 9% % of population showed (to me) that the banks were scared to death not to loan to blacks.

Meaning...whites, hispanics, jews and others were in fact being the ones discriminated against.

Back to on Paul...the guy's agnostic.

You earn the credit....credit is due.

Don't?  Go fuck yourself.

(Just like Israel).

JJ

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl


Not saying it isnt true, just that it cant be found. And when dealing with this kind of information, you should offer something to back your claims up. Mind hooking me up?

quote:

ORIGINAL: fox469
............ What if he didn't write it? What if his personal responsibility is to stand up for himself it because he didn't write it?

.................Now I don't agree with everything he says, but "racist" isn't a reason to not vote for him.

PS: thank you for the welcomes. I hate posting on politics, or in general... but I do all the time on politics.

quote:

ORIGINAL: hlen5

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: hlen5

I found some of Paul's points of view to be valid. Finding out that as late as 1992 (vs 1962) he's making racist comments totally blows his credibility with me.

(For the record, I don't think that statement would have been OK in '62, either.)

Try 1996.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/26/ron-paul-newsletters-swiftness-of-black-men_n_1169990.html

Too funny! I answered Lookie with the same article!!!

quote:

Now I don't agree with everything he says, but "racist" isn't a reason to not vote for him.